Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the two-party-narrative dept.

Republicans 857

Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."

cancel ×

857 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

here we go (5, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914021)

made popcorn as soon as I saw this come up in red - have at it kids.

I'm glad I support the Republicans (0, Flamebait)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914211)

I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.

And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans

I know, I know, there are a lot of rotten apples in the Republican camp - but then, there are a lot of rotten apples everywhere, and my main objective now is to stop that bunch of lunatic Democrats who are doing everything to restrict everybody's rights

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914287)

Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.

In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.

As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914393)

Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.

When the entire POINT of political parties is to lump people into categories so that their positions become similar, broad generalizations come with the territory. Assume that everyone of a particular race or creed has a drinking problem and you're a bigot. Assume that everyone who attends AA has a drinking problem and you're likely pretty close to on target.

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914307)

You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (5, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914399)

I know how you feel, but I don't think that the Republicans are any better. I don't make enough money to feel restricted by the Democrats, but the Republicans :
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.

I don't like what the Democrats are doing either, but I feel more personally threatened by the Republicans.

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914459)

At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice, and it's criminal that the State Department is blocking the return of surplus WWII-era M1 Rifles and Carbines from Korea (which would then be administered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and sold participants in its programs)

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (5, Insightful)

RoLi (141856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914409)

The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP [in-other-news.com] and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.

I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.

When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?

So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (5, Insightful)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914435)

And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans

I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.

Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914491)

I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.

I'm curious - which rights are you referring to, specifically? I mean, surely you have some examples of them trying to do that?

Re:here we go (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914213)

Yeah, I love it how people these days forget that in politics, one has to look at the options, actually evaluate what these candidates have done in the past and what they claim they'll do now, and pick one that has the most in common with the realistic goals that they share.

This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening. I know that I am not going to agree with everything that is espoused or even actually held as a belief by a candidate that I choose from. I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around, and issue-politics and muckracking doesn't help me see the bulk of the positions that a given candidate takes, only the ones that the opponents of the candidate think will be the most onerous.

Re:here we go (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914455)

This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening.

I depends. Different issues have different levels of importance to different people. It could be the the person in your quote has a preferred position on W, X, Y, and Z, but doesn't care that much, but A and B are their key issues of concern. In such a case, they rightly shouldn't support the candidate.

Re:here we go (0)

RoLi (141856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914471)

I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around.

Yeah, that's why representative democracy does not work while direct democracy does [in-other-news.com] .

Re:here we go (5, Interesting)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914477)

I generally abhor people who are one issue voters.

But, the Internet is the most powerful platform for free and open communication the world has ever seen.

My opinion now is that ANY politician from ANY party who supports crippling the Internet is not just undesirable, but is in fact my enemy.

I will be a single issue voter when the future of the Internet is on the line.

Re:here we go (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914497)

It seems to me that's how Romney is doing so well at the moment. Someone not so long ago described him as a well oiled weather vane.

...And "Boom" Go the Heads in the /. Hive-Mind (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914239)

This is the geek-world "Truth That Dare Not Speak It's Name," namely that it is the liberal/democrat machine that continues to give oxygen and sustenance to that e-e-e-e-e-e-evil content distribution industry. Maybe it's because so many of the artists themselves usually espouse left-wing politics, support the democratic candidates, and will not know how to earn a dime if technical progress continues to chip away at the struts in the old content/contract/distribution/residuals system.

"Popcorn," indeed...

Hmm (1, Flamebait)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914025)

I want to mod this article as Flamebait.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914063)

Facts do make a lot of people angry.

Re:Hmm (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914175)

That was a great response... :-)

Re:Hmm (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914405)

Why? The article is a severe distortion of the facts.

Re:Hmm (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914185)

What facts?

There's hyper-conjecture in the article, but not a lot of substance. SOPA would never have gotten out of committee without a majority of Repugs supporting it, it never would have gotten to the floor without John "Corruption Is My Middle Name" Boehner's support. THR conveniently leave that fact out of their reporting.

Now, a bunch of media-savvy members of the GOP noise machine came up with campaigns about "Obama wants to use SOPA to shut down right wing blogs" and other such lying bullshit that the retarded rank and file were more than happy to lap up, but that's about all you can say for it. The GOP opposition wasn't about principles of free speech; remember, anyone they don't like, gets Joe McCarthy-style "hearings", they just don't use the name "House Unamerican Activities Committee" any more.

Re:Hmm (3, Interesting)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914389)

SOPA would never have gotten out of committee without a majority of Repugs supporting it, it never would have gotten to the floor without John "Corruption Is My Middle Name" Boehner's support. THR conveniently leave that fact out of their reporting

SOPA never made it out of committee to the floor in the House. That's probably why THR didn't report any of that.

Facts are a terrible thing when they disagree with a liberal.

Re:Hmm (-1, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914425)

The fact that this is moderated "flamebait" is proof that facts do, in fact, make a lot of people angry.

Nothing's worse than throwing their own hypocrisy in their faces.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914191)

Facts do make a lot of people angry.

They do me and I'm no better than anyone else - which also pisses me off because I want to be better than everyone else.

Anyway, I have been making a concerted effort to read and understand the "otherside" myself. As a result, I've become quite moderate - I no longer consider myself libertarian; although my social leanings are quite liberal.

But the thing that annoys me to no end is when I see folks parrot shit they heard or have seen in the electronic media.

"Obama's socialist policies are ruining America!!"

"Really? Which ones?", I ask.

Of course, I very rarely get a conherant answer.

On the other side, last night I heard about a Congressional testimony about Al-Qaeda and how it has become virtually nothing on a global scale and at least on a global scale, the threat of terrorism has declined dramatically. I couldn't help but "blame" Bush, Jr for that or at least getting the ball rolling.

being a moderate in America is very lonely.

Being an Atheirst Moderate means I have to live in a cave - with interent connectivity. I'm sub-leasing Bin Laden's.....

Re:Hmm (2)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914377)

um - Bin Laden was in a nice Pakistani house.

but I will commiserate with you. The humor (to me) is I'm a moderate evangelical. So we are different but experience a similar disconnect with the majority groups. (I assume - it sure sounds like it anyway)

For me it's a huge disconnect between the conservatives who are supposed to be more Christian and Christian values. At the same time I'm stumped as to why so many liberals seem to be completely fine with ramping up our over-seas assassination program to entirely new levels. As you say, Bush got the ball rolling, but Obama's numbers leave any other US president in the dust when it comes to blowing up foreigners (or the occasional American on foreign soil).

I quit paying too much attention a long time ago though - I realized I wasn't going to reconcile it all or change it. I don't have a team to route for and that's what it has all boiled down to.

Re:Hmm (2, Insightful)

stevew (4845) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914457)

Obamacare - Government run health care because the Government knows better than you or your Doctor.

Bailouts of GM. et al, i.e. government ownership.

Support of Unions over the best interests of the country - Specifically SEIU.

There's three.

Re:Hmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914295)

Facts do make a lot of people angry.

Especially facts about black people and how they compare to other racial/ethnic groups using the following metrics: IQ scores, socioeconomic achievement, level of education, children born out of wedlock, rate of drug abuse including alcohol, and likelihood of an adult male to have been incarcerated.

Racism is a pretty damned weak excuse for this. I mean really someone explain it to me - how does a "racist" thought in a white man's mind force a black man to abandon his children? It couldn't and that's an oversimplified explanation made for simpletons. It doesn't stand up to questioning.

Unless you mean the racism (race hypersensitivity?) of the black people themselves and their insistence on being so angry about something that ended a long time ago. So many of them view themselves as eternal victims and use "racism" as the one-size-fits-all excuse for all of their shortcomings in life. That one really might explain their culture of anti-achievement. Nothing makes you weak like when you think you are perfect, nothing is ever your own fault, and you always have a convenient scapegoat you can blame all your problems on. If you had all that why would anything change? Oh yeah, because they're not happy hating Whitey.

They are a broken people, unfortunately, and only they can fix themselves.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914107)

LOL...Think this guy's a Democrat?

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914115)

I don't think so; It looks to me like both parties are pretty damned sleazy here. Dems: "we have to support this because hollywood id paying us to." Repubs: "Hollywood is financing the Dems to pass this bill, so we must oppose it." Note they were for it until they realized opposing it was political gold.

A pox on both their houses. BTW, the opportunity to "mod" a submission is in the fiirehose.

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914179)

Note that supporting it was literal gold.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914335)

Read the story again. The Republicans switched due to pressure from conservative bloggers and the TEA Party. You know, the people who VOTE for Republicans.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914383)

Are we shocked that this was the reaction? I mean at least it was nice to have the opinion of the public hit the ears (or wallets) of our Congressmen and Senators and they actually did something with it. But I think we've known for a long time that most of the people in those chairs are more concerned with staying there instead of doing something "in the interest of the country and citizens."

Let's face it, they would have supported this thing right until the end without giving a single thought about the consequences beyond the cash flow from the people who tried to buy this through. This isn't a Rep/Dem issue except where they'll try to leverage it in the next election cycle. I still say kudos to the entire public effort to raise awareness, and I'll just take the small bit of good news that came from this effort to stop PIPA and SOPA. I know the war's not over by any stretch, but it was nice to be heard by our federal lawmakers.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914451)

Note they were for it until they realized opposing it was political gold.

That is one of the underlying concepts of an electoral system, that candidates will adopt positions that will draw votes. There's nothing wrong with it. (The part about adopting positions based on who pays who is unhealthy though).

Re:Hmm (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914513)

Actually, all political discussion aside, I've been laughing about how my original post about flamebaiting the article....got flamebaited.

...and we are surprised because...? (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914037)

The Democrats have been Hollywood's party for a long time now, so of course they would support this sort of bill more than the Republicans. These "two" parties are differentiated only by which set of corporations they work for the benefit of, after all (and the two sets are not even disjoint).

Re:...and we are surprised because...? (5, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914085)

And yet capitalism -- let us not forget that Big Brother presides over an integrated, global capitalist system -- must be democratic, because it cannot be anything else. Capitalism could only grow hand-in-hand with democratic society. To deploy itself fully over the face of the whole planet, capitalism must even now permanently assure everyone of a choice, the outcome of which it has determined in advance. One must be able to choose between two indistinguishable politicians or two indistinguishable political ideologies because one chooses between two indistinguishable commodities. If there is no appearance of political democracy, there can be no sustainable capitalist system. This has been proven to be true by the permanent atrophy of the merchants in oriental despotism, by the ultimate defeat of Hitlerian and Mussolinian fascism, and by how poorly bureaucratic capitalism was managed by Stalinism.

Re:...and we are surprised because...? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914507)

Then why is the politically communist yet economically capitalist China an economic powerhouse?

Re:...and we are surprised because...? (2, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914087)

The movie industry is deeply engaged with labor unions. The Democrats tend to favor labor unions, so the movie industry often pushes for Democrat candidates to keep their status quo union agreements.

Er ... That's Not What the Article Says (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914165)

The movie industry is deeply engaged with labor unions. The Democrats tend to favor labor unions, so the movie industry often pushes for Democrat candidates to keep their status quo union agreements.

That's odd, the article says:

Ever since GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole claimed that Hollywood produced "nightmares of depravity" that coarsened American culture and made "deviancy" mainstream, movie studios and record labels have enjoyed a spectacularly uneasy relationship with the Republican Party.

So it appears that the "think of the children" supporters of Republican candidates made them tough to buy by the MPAA and RIAA which like to sell "indecent" materials if it will turn a profit.

I'm quite confused by your assertion that the companies and corporations support those who support labor unions. Um, I thought that labor unions allowed workers to band together to turn the screws on the companies that employ them -- thus detracting from the company's massive profits and gaining more benefits and pay for the workers? Why would the CEOs and lawyers that feed off those profits pay into politicians that support the labor unions that could have them shrinking those profits? Is there something special about MPAA/RIAA unions that actually shifts the capital up to those companies like Universal Music Group and the big studio executives?

Re:Er ... That's Not What the Article Says (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914303)

Not all politics happen in D.C.

While supporting labor unions may hurt a studio's bottom line a little, incurring the wrath of a union for supporting an anti-union candidate hurts more. I don't intend to dispute what the article says about bad blood between the Republicans and the MPAA, but merely to add to it.

Re:Er ... That's Not What the Article Says (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914347)

In reality, labor unions are just other corporations. The leadership operates under the exact same 'principles'. They keep the money flowing, suppress rebellions, etc.

Re:...and we are surprised because...? (1)

mmelson (441923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914337)

.. (and the two sets are not even disjoint).

We call that BI-PARTISANSHIP.

Breaking news (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914039)

Dems backed by Hollywood and green tech, Repubs backed by fossil energy and military tech; parties found attacking opposition's supporters. Film at 11.

Re:Breaking news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914077)

Exactly. Don't trust either party. Read The Prince, learn the tactics, learn what motivates each side and use it to your advantage.

I've got something to tell you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914051)

I'm not wearing underwear today,
No I'm not wearing underwear today.
Not that you probably care,
Much about my underwear,
Still none the less I gotta say
That I'm not wearing underwear today!

It's True (2, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914069)

Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. We see them for what they are: power grabs by BOTH the MPAA/RIAA et all AND the government. As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives. Not more.

So the Tea Party HAMMERED the GOP over this one and unlike the Dems, the GOP LISTENED and responded in the way the people wanted.

There are alot of people on /. that consistently say that there is no difference between the parties. I think this serves as an excellent example of why these people are wrong.

Re:It's True (5, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914113)

I don't agree. I think it shows that they are pretty much the same. Republicans "listened" because they weighed the potential political gain to be greater than the risk.

Read mainstream press about anything involving the US government any more and you'll see that they don't skirt it - it's all about being elected, re-elected or gaining political leverage, apparently for it's own sake. Doing something with the military somewhere? Decisions based on strategy or national interest? No - they are based on political considerations. Setting fiscal policy. Is any of it based on anything other than if it helps or hurts your party? No.

This shows a lot more of the same going on.

Re:It's True (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914181)

Well I believe there are solid extra motivation. Every politician is bought already, the big difference is who their sponsors are. Though I do also have to say in the short run fighting against SOPA may also have had quite a bit to do with who is in power at the moment. I honestly don't think there is a single republican in this race who has a decent shot at unseating Obama (not that Obama is that good, but the current candidates are that horrible).

Re:It's True (4, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914227)

I don't live in the US and I don't go out of my way to keep track of the current presidential election - but from what I can see Obama should coast to victory. But honestly I see no difference. I think what happens in the public eye is a side show to keep people from dealing with reality.

It's going on all over the world - not just the US. The attention level is just higher because what the US does has such a high impact on so many other countries.

Re:It's True (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914439)

US politics are also rather more theatrical and entertaining than the politics of most countries. People like a show, and US politics has it.

Re:It's True (5, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914219)

Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.

1 Part - entrenched political corporate interest and bourgeois.

1 Part - libertarian small government movement

1 Part - religious conservative

As such, it is often in more internal turmoil and conflict due to the divisions, but more likely to be pushed and changed on an issue due to the need of all three groups to support in opposition to the Democrat party which is over all more homogenous.

Re:It's True (5, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914351)

You're thinking about this, but you aren't coming to the right conclusion. The Democratic party is actually *more* fragmented than the Republicans. You could do similar to what you did for the Republicans for the Democrats:

1 - Upscale liberals
1 - Blacks
1 - Union voters
1 - Hispanics (the fuzziest part of all since they are only 60-70% for Democrats)

As a Democrat, depending on the demographics of your area, you probably have to please at least two of these constituencies to get re-elected. You have to please all four in a national election year. Especially, you have to pander to Hispanics who aren't a solid bloc anyway (ask a Mexican and a Puerto Rican whether they feel any close bond...) and are likely to bolt the party if you offend them.

Re:It's True (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914461)

absolutely - and there are more groups - greens for one. Look at the oil pipeline decision recently for a good example of the different forces at work in the dem world.

Re:It's True (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914467)

That's not at all what it looked like when things came up for a vote in Congress. Most of the time the Republicans voted as a block, the Democrats split. Some of the time the Republicans permitted a dissenting vote as long as it didn't change the results, and they rotated that vote around dissenting members. Some of the time the Democrats voted as a block as well, but not as often, and not nearly with the same unity. (Think Blue Dogs, for one.)

Re:It's True (4, Interesting)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914129)

Tea Party ... . As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives

sure. unless they can force a theocracy onto the US.

Re:It's True (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914375)

Really? Are you still trying to smear the Tea Party with that shit? It has nothing to do with their message. Neither does white supremacy or some of the other bullshit the press and some people have tried to associate them with. If it makes you feel better to make stuff up so you can demonize them, go ahead. Let me guess: you probably think OWS is the cat's meow, too.

Re:It's True (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914187)

Yes, because the Republican party has been very responsive in repealing the PATRIOT ACT and abolishing the TSA.

And of course, the Tea Party has absolutely no problem with the government forcing their interpretation of Christianity down everyone's throats, e.g. no gay marriage, thus intruding into their lives.

Re:It's True (1, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914189)

Unfortunately the Tea Part also showed its utter lack of understanding of government with the debt ceiling fiasco. It's one thing to say you HATE HATE HATE and want LESS government but it's another thing to argue from a point of total ignorance of realpolitik and global economics and just simply HATE and act like a 2 year old in the middle of a temper tantrum.

Also, if the tea party wants LESS government, why is it so interested in using government to shove their religious/moral beliefs down my throat?

Face it, the tea party is just another political party interested in using government to establish its own agenda and impose it on the rest of us.

Re:It's True (0, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914273)

The only 'fiasco' about debt ceiling was that it was allowed to go up.

Re:It's True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914207)

I don't disagree, but your abuse of capital words makes me cringe. Lay off if you want to sound legitimate.

Re:It's True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914225)

IIRC, there was a graphic that showed support the day before and the day it was shot down.

There was a equal number of blue and red when it was 'business as usual.' When the Blackout occurred, a good portion of those supporting this bill dropped but there was more blue than red representatives that supported this bill because...they get their campaign money from Hollywood, devil may care.

FUD on you, sir.

Re:It's True (-1, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914277)

Ah yes, I remember your arguments well:

"Obozo wants SOPA and PIPA so he can ban all right-wing blogs and make the LSM the only source of news again" - Rush "the Big Fat Lying Oxycontin Whore" Limbaugh.

I still say you're a bunch of fucking lunatics. Come back to earth once in a while, away from the echo chamber, and realize that those of us in the middle are not "communists", we are not "socialists", we're just trying to live our lives and not get raped too bad by the corporatocracy that you right wing morons keep trying to grant more and more power to.

God forbid we have SANE economic policies... no, a social safety net, taking care of the poor and infirm and elderly, taking care of those who lose jobs when inhuman assholes like you ship entire industries overseas, making sure we clean up the environment because our kids are paying for it with their health (witness the urban asthma epidemic; more than 20% of kids in urban areas are getting diagnosed with asthma these days!)? Oh no, to fucking morons like you that's "socialism" and "a welfare state."

And don't get me started on your fucking retarded tax policies. Someone who sits on his ass after raping businesses in bankruptcy scams like Mitt Romney can get away with paying an effective 14% tax rate, while I pay double that rate making less than 1/100th of what he does and working my ass off to do it, and you call that "fair"?

The Tea Party is a collection of fucking retarded loonies too stupid to understand that the assholes running the group are ripping them off and lying to them.

Re:It's True (1)

ThisIsSaei (2397758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914473)

Not sure how this isn't flamebait/trolling. Responding to a generally moderate opinion about internal fracturing within a political spectrum with general bashing and over-simplifications does nobody good. Also responding with instant defensive stances about what 'they are not' when nobody called them such names to start should be clearly indicative of the poster's intent.

Re:It's True (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914291)

Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.

Most on the left hate it too. In fact, pretty much *everyone* but the politicians and media powers hate it. I've yet to hear support for any of those bills (or the DMCA, ACTA, etc.) from anyone who *didn't* have some sort of direct financial interest in it, be it a media company that desperately wants to preserve its old model (the same way they fought to stop the tape copying, the VCR, DVD-ripping, etc.) or some politician who wants their campaign donations. You think anyone in their right mind outside of those two groups wants to hand over the power to shut down any part of the internet to Sony, Comcast, Viacom, etc.? No way.

Re:It's True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914301)

Of course there is no *overall* difference in that they both have aspects that sucks completely.

When you have 2 packages to choose from and

Package A has 5 specific bad things about them

and

Package B has 5 separate specific bad things about them

You are forced to shoehorn which package fits your ideal the best even if it only inline with 30% of your ideals. Having good thing about them does not balance out the bad things about them. In the end, we are forced to comprise out political choices because of the crappy 2 party winner take all system.

Re:It's True (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914397)

...we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives.

Great... Put your money where your mouth is. Abolish prohibition

Re:It's True (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914423)

Tea party hammered? LAST I saw it was national outrage spurred by the EFF and nerds. You Tea Party people were late to the game.

Where the hell were you and your members when the rest of us were screaming NO to it back in September and October?

The GOP did not Listen to you, they saw a giant mass of people angry about it and realized that in an election year it's stupid to piss everyone off. SOPA is "tabled" until everyone is distracted and it will pass quietly attached to a "limit puppy killing to two per day" law.

I am grateful that you guys finally got around to dealing with it, but dont you even think that you were the knights in shining armor. You were the horde that got in on it after the rest of us have been yelling about it for months.

Nice Try.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914075)

..Tea Party Advertisers

It's "the Internet", not "the internet" (-1, Offtopic)

Phrogz (43803) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914079)

It's a proper noun, folks.

is for porn (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914097)

It truly is.

Re:is for porn (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914235)

I thought it was spelled pr0n

Seriously? (2)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914093)

Politicians don't want to tick off their funding sources, will do anything to score a cheap point.

This is a surprise to anyone, anymore?

Holy shit... (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914101)

Did some politicians just say that it sometimes helps to listen to the electorate?

MY HEAD A SPLODE.

Someone did the right thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914103)

Thank you Republicans!

Re:Someone did the right thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914121)

No problemo neighborino! I'm on my way to fight for Internet freedom some more by protesting against net neutrality. See ya later! ^_^

Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (5, Informative)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914131)

Seriously, the guy who introduced the bill is in the GOP. Give me a break slashdot.

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/ [house.gov]

Re:Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914257)

Psst... there is more than one republican in Congress.

Re:Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (5, Interesting)

jellie (949898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914305)

Of course you're correct, but this is all the right-wing (and Tea Party) spin on the issues. The main article is written by a former official under Bush II who conveniently ignores the fact that the Republican party opposes EVERYTHING supported by any Democrats. The Democrats wanted to extend the payroll tax cut, while the Republicans opposed it until they finally gave in on a two month extension. They're also trying to kill any additional regulation of Wall Street, because these bills are usually being proposed by Democrats. And the "individual mandate" of the Obama health care plan? That was supported by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, and even Romney way before Obama proposed it.

This is just typical rewriting of history.

Re:Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (2)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914321)

A political trick to allow the bill to get bi-partisan support, IMO. The Repubs want to vote against "Liberal Hollywood", but not when the bill is introduced by another Repub.

Re:Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914327)

Seriously, there is a second bill like it by the other party. They wrote their own version. What are the chances of two near identical bills at the same time without some outside money to make it happen"

Someone on both sides of the isle took the industry money. One side backed down when it attracted the public's attention.

As is Bob Goodlatte, the co-sponsor (1)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914357)

Also both are CHAIRS of both of their respective committees, House Judiciary committee and House Judiciary Intellectual Property Sub-Panel. (I would imagine that unless you are the Chair, it is pretty hard to get something out of committee.)

That said, there must be something to this story; the Hollywood Reporter is a well known publication. Perhaps, the Dems (of which I am one) WERE more reluctant to withdraw their support for this bill. All I can say is, nobody's perfect (and there are many many other times when the Repubs supported bad bills) and intellectual property laws ARE seriously lacking/screwed up and need fixing.

Just not in this way!

Re:Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914367)

No kidding. This thing isn't about parties or political ideologies--it's about one thing and one thing only: MONEY. The media companies make lots of it, and they give a big chunk of it to any politician from either party who will support their draconian attempts to *keep* making lots of it.

It's not about D and R, it's about $.

So we are forgetting (4, Informative)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914145)

We are forgetting that Lamar Smith, a Republican first proposed this thing, correct? Face it, it wasn't Tea Party supporters or Republicans that stopped this. It was all of us that wanted Internet freedom. It was the threat of being voted out of office that made these politicians reject it, not one party or another. You bet your ass either side would pass it if they thought they could get away with it.

Re:So we are forgetting (0)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914341)

Face it, it wasn't Tea Party supporters or Republicans that stopped this. It was all of us that wanted Internet freedom.

True. But that does not make a good, biased to the point of delusion campaign slogan for the GOP, which is exactly what this "story" is.

Re:So we are forgetting (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914465)

It was all of us that wanted Internet freedom.

Oh please! It was Google's money.. Christ! If the politicians actually listened to us, you think we would be at war right now?

wow, they finally figured it out? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914157)

"they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them"

seriously, it's taken the gop & tea nuts HOW many years to figure this out? I'm no fan of either but it's always amazed me how enthusiastically they've greased the rails for laws designed to divert cash-flow to their opponent's biggest donors...

who knows? maybe there's hope that in another few decades they'll figure out fraud & forgery actually ARE crimes when committed by banks (not just individuals) or that molesting children & microwaving their parents doesn't make flying any safer or maybe even that spending $ arresting/prosecuting/incarcerating people for THC is basically setting it on fire...

yes, I'm a wild optimist at heart...

Shocking (2)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914169)

I agree with the Tea Party position here. What's next? Pigs flying? Snowballs in hell?

Party Discipline (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914197)

I don't know if it is a good thing but it shouldn't be shocking that there are "party discipline" differences between the Dems and GOP. It just happens that this time it was pointed towards something popular to hate.

To all the folks who doubt this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914203)

This is common knowledge. Look at Apple pushing DRM and the "walled garden" distribution model, which is great for SOPA.

Need more libertarians in the tech industry. The progressives are killing us because Tim Cook was pushing Apple jobs overseas while Jobs said the Apple was American during the 80s and 90s. Now with the company under Cook's control, is the secretive Apple going to be the big "Microsoft" Apple that will be broken down by lawsuits and litigation?

intellectual poopery... (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914217)

...my ass. MPAA and RIAA have been using the Constitution for toilet paper for a long time now. Individual rights? Bill of rights? Certain rights to Creators? Ex post facto? Perpetuities for starters (over 100 yrs? Intellectual - Hollywood?

Theory of democratic assurance. (2)

fudmer (1555599) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914289)

The framers of the constitution designed-into its bosom: protection to those who engaged in commercial corruption. Those who wrote it, intended it so, it was their way, back them. The real failures in the constitution are two: both pointed to by the article: 1. failure to include, provide for and deliver to every human citizen- American full and fair disclosure about the activities of the humans that operate in or for USA, Inc. (DBA Constitutional Government), and 2. failure to provide the governed human Citizen-Americans an independent [of the USA, Inc. scope and authority], an exclusive right of the governed human citizen-American to investigate, depose witnesses, charge, indite, prosecute, convict and punish those persons[human or corporate] acting in, or for, or under color of our government. In other words, if the governed, who are subject to the government, watch-dogged, those who run the government or who contract with those who run the government: the interest the government serves would be better balanced between democracy and commerce. The theory of democratic assurance is that oversight by the governed is required to preserve the integrity of those who represent the governed. Oversight is different from socialism because oversight does not empower the governed to direct the government, but proper oversight would empower the governed to protect democratic integrity and to prevent corruption or abuse by those who operate or contract with the government.

Good (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914297)

That is how opposition parties and groups are supposed to behave - to point out and oppose stupid things being promoted by the other side.

Shear opposition without selection is stupid, but so is a bought-and-paid-for bipartisanship.

Nicely played Americans are. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914317)

Propose a bill that will stir negative public opionion then let your offshoot political branch be the "ones against it". Does anyone really believe the tea baggers want free access to any content.

Flipping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38914333)

I was wondering which party would flip on SOPA first and use it as a political weapon against the other.

Most hated nation? (2)

alukin (184606) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914353)

ACTA, PIPA, SOPA could make Americans most hated nation on the planet. Get a look at latest events in Poland, Ukraine and other counties.

Voters count (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914427)

People often say that money buys elections, but it doesn't. Money buys voters, who decide elections. It's just that it can be very difficult to influence voters, so if someone offers a politician money, he takes it. If you can truly offer that politician, voters, he'll drop the money people without a second thought.
The trick is to get enough voters on your side, then convince the politician that you actually speak for that group, and they will actually vote your way. Much, much easier to write a check.

The chose Chris Dodd to lobby for them (4, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914479)

who was... wait for it... A democrat.

I'm not going to blame either side for this... I think we can agree that both parties have been on both sides of this issue.

Lets just be happy SOPA died and remember in the future that MAYBE the "other" party which ever that might be for you MIGHT not be made up entirely of vampire demon nazis... and might just be okay people with a different perspective on things.

Honestly, most of the political disagreements would go away if we stopped trying to impose things on people that don't want to participate. If you have a great idea... great. Anyone that actually likes that idea will support it. If your idea involves forcing people at gun point to do what you say though... maybe it isn't such a great idea.

Enemy of my enemy (2)

seven of five (578993) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914501)

Sounds like a simple case of, "We don't like them, and we don't like you, so since they give you money, we'll oppose it."

The enemy of my enemy... (1)

ossuary (1532467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914515)

They took a shot at a populist win and ran with it. I can't fault them for that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>